Safeguarding Identity in the Digital Age: The Delhi High Court’s Judgment

Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors. highlights the legal challenges surrounding personality rights and trademark infringement in the digital age. Addressing issues of unauthorized use of personal identity and deceptive marketing practices, the Court granted injunctive relief to protect Dr. Shetty’s persona and the goodwill of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. This decision underscores the importance of safeguarding intellectual property and personal rights against misuse in online and offline spaces.

Plaintiff’s Submissions and Averments

Plaintiffs’ Profile

• Plaintiff No. 1: Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty is a renowned cardiac surgeon, philanthropist, and chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. He holds a US patent for a “System and Method for Facilitating Delivery of Patient-Care” and founded the College of Nursing, Asia Heart Foundation, and RTIICS in Kolkata. He also headed Karnataka’s Covid Task Force during the third wave. His contributions to affordable healthcare have earned him global recognition, including features in the Netflix documentary The Surgeon’s Cut.
• Plaintiff No. 2: Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., established in 2000 and later rebranded as Narayana Institute of Cardiac Sciences (NICS), is a JCI and NABH-accredited hospital specializing in cardiac healthcare. NICS operates the world’s largest pediatric cardiac ICU and performs numerous cardiac surgeries daily. The trademarks “Narayana Hrudayalaya” and “Narayana Health,” used exclusively by the Plaintiff since 2000 and 2001, have gained substantial goodwill, reputation, and recognition both in India and internationally.

Infringement of Personality Rights of Plaintiff No. 1

• Plaintiff No. 1, being a well-known personality, has a valid and enforceable personality right, including the right to control the use of his image, likeness, and voice.
• Defendants have unauthorizedly used and misappropriated Dr. Shetty’s name, likeness, photos, and videos for commercial gain without his consent.
• The Defendants’ actions pose a risk of misleading the public, creating the false impression of association with Plaintiff no. 1 or his endorsement of products or services.

Infringement of Trademarks of Plaintiff No. 2

• Plaintiff No. 2’s trademarks, “Narayana Health” and “Narayana Hrudayalaya,” are well-known and associated exclusively with Plaintiff no. 2’s healthcare services.
• The Defendants have infringed these trademarks by using them, or deceptive variants of them, without authorization, resulting in a likelihood of confusion among the public.
• Such unauthorized use dilutes and tarnishes the distinctive quality of the marks and misleads the public into associating the Defendants’ services with Plaintiff no. 2.

Misleading Content and Commercial Exploitation

• Defendants have created and shared misleading videos and articles on social media platforms, utilizing the name, likeness, and image of Dr. Shetty to promote purported health products and services.
• The Defendants have deliberately distorted and doctored existing videos of Dr. Shetty to imply an endorsement or association, despite no such authorization being granted.
• The Defendants’ actions are aimed at deriving illicit commercial benefits by exploiting the goodwill and recognition of the Plaintiffs.

Public Harm and Risk of Deception

• The unauthorized use of Plaintiff no. 1’s persona and Plaintiff no. 2’s trademarks can mislead the public, causing potential harm to their reputation and leading consumers to make uninformed decisions regarding health products or services.
• Such misappropriation could also result in adverse health consequences for individuals who follow the misleading health tips or purchase products associated with Plaintiff no. 1’s persona.
• The actions of the Defendants undermine the trust and credibility built by Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 over many years.

Mala Fide Intent and Unjust Enrichment

• The Defendants’ actions demonstrate mala fide intent to deceive the public by creating content that appears to be affiliated with Plaintiff no. 1, thereby unjustly benefiting from his goodwill and recognition.
• The unauthorized use of Plaintiff no. 1’s image and videos is an attempt to exploit his personality rights for commercial gain at the Plaintiffs’ expense.

Irreparable Harm and Need for Injunctive Relief

• The unauthorized actions of the Defendants have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm to the goodwill, reputation, and personality rights of the Plaintiffs.
• The Plaintiffs seek immediate injunctive relief to prevent further damage to their image and intellectual property, as the harm caused by such misappropriation cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone.

The Court’s Decision

• The Court acknowledged that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. It noted that if an ex parte ad interim injunction was not granted, the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, and the balance of convenience was in their favor.
• The Court restrained Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 13, along with their associates, partners, directors, family members, servants, agents, and anyone acting on their behalf, from:
  • Misusing or exploiting Plaintiff No. 1’s persona, including name, image, likeness, videos, or any other aspect associated with him, for commercial or personal gain.
  • Using advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence or deepfake technology for unauthorized reproduction or representation of Plaintiff No. 1 in any medium, format, or platform.
  • Any act resulting in infringement or passing off the personality and publicity rights of Plaintiff No. 1.
• Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 13 were further restrained from infringing the registered trademarks of Plaintiff No. 2.
• Action Against Online Platforms:
  • Defendant No. 9 (a social media platform) was directed to:
    • Block or take down infringing content uploaded by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
    • Provide complete identification details (name, address, email, phone number) of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, as per the law.
  • Defendant No. 10 (Google LLC) was directed to:
    • Block or take down the impugned content or channels of Defendant Nos. 4 to 8.
    • Disclose complete identification details (name, address, email, phone number) of Defendant Nos. 4 to 8, as per the law.
• The Plaintiffs were allowed to approach Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 during the course of the suit to request the blocking or removal of any additional false, fake, or infringing content not originating from them. If there were any disputes or doubts, the Plaintiffs could seek further orders from the Court.
• Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 were instructed to notify all telecom and internet service providers to block or suspend websites identified during the suit as infringing the rights of the Plaintiffs.
• Defendant No. 5 expressed willingness to remove the infringing videos and assured the Court that no such content would be uploaded in the future. The Court noted this statement and held Defendant No. 5 bound by it.

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the protection of personality rights and trademarks against unauthorized use, particularly in the digital age. By granting an injunction, the Court addressed the risks of public deception, reputational harm, and commercial exploitation. The decision emphasizes accountability for misuse of AI and deepfake technologies and ensures stricter oversight by online platforms and service providers. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing technological advancements with safeguarding individual rights and intellectual property.